Profile Network Activity Comments Articles Blog Bookmarks Contact
 

Approach to Renewables: "You Know What Your Problem Is?"

By Jennifer Zajac
February 2, 2011   |   22 Comments

Do you like this blog post?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Share
 

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

22 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 22
February 2, 2011
Nice post, Jennifer! When I first saw the title, I was thinking more in terms of the question we like to pose to our clients: "What is the problem you want to solve?" That approach helps focus on identifying a clear goal and applying an appropriate solution (rather than the most popular solution).

You are right to be pointing out instead that we aren't usually asking this question, but instead asking right off the bat, "Why won't this work?" Maybe if we flipped the thinking to the other emphasis ("What do you want to solve?"), more of us could see where renewables do solve problems, where they don't, and why we need to work toward a more truly competitive market to establish which technologies truly do solve our problems in the best ways.

So, perhaps the question for the paper should have read "strengths and weaknesses" or "benefits and challenges."

Keep up the good work!
Comment
2 of 22
February 2, 2011
What to do with solar thermal is a particularly vexing because solar PV gets (pretty much) all the press and glory. Solar thermal has three major problems:

1. Ineffectual marketing
2. Being often sold as a second-tier solution after a PV bid is rejected.
3. Low margins (compared to PV and reinforced by #2)

The whole "too expensive" horse has been ridden hard. In the mean time, SunRun's solar home electricity services are growing, companies like SolarCity are expanding nationwide on the back of their solar lease program (and closing on major financing with a well-known bank: Citi) and Sungevity is launching their .org to get more solar in the hands of non-profits and education. It's hard to claim that the too expensive issue is not being chipped away right now in the marketplace independent of technological advances. Finance and soft-cost innovations are happening; not just imminent.

However, innovations like this have not come to pass for solar thermal. What do you think about the reasons why not?
Comment
3 of 22
February 2, 2011
When you say "solar thermal" are you talking about solar thermal power plants, or solar thermal home hot water systems?

I ask because I have a fairly simple solar panel design (for home hot water system, not the power plant) that would increase the temperature output of a solar thermal "flat plate"--the higher temp. should expand the market to more commercial/industrial uses--without increasing the panel cost.
I'm on the lookout for contacts in the industry that would like to explore the design.
Comment
4 of 22
February 3, 2011
Well put, Jen. I'd love to see the outcome of your research. With your positive point of view, I'm sure you've hit on somethings that could benefit us all.
Comment
5 of 22
February 3, 2011
Jen,

Your focus is obviously on PV and maybe wind. It's obvious from you criticism.
Do you see those same issues arising with daylighting and/or solar thermal?
Comment
6 of 22
February 3, 2011
Jennifer,
The big rock in space trek enabled the US edge in photovoltacs as well as the computer industry, material science and enough implied orbital mechanics (dovetailer with cryogenics and lasers) to scare the Soviets into bankruptcy.

In the beginning of the search you may know what you are looking for but not what you'll find.
Comment
7 of 22
February 3, 2011
Hi Jen:

Your list of "problems" made me smile and laugh....

It is always fun and socially satisfying to be in a "school" environment.... and you can usually walk away with something worthwhile...

Not to go long on this which I will probably fail at, I stared and reread your post for 30 min or so.. so many thoughts.
To a large part your quandary is the old, glass half empty or half full? If you are sales and marketing, the glass is of course half full. If you are a mortician the glass is half empty, and if you are in materials engineering, "but is it really water in the glass?".

To a large part, other than cost, all of the items you list are paper tigers. They are not problems at all. They are simply differences in the energy form, as to what is in place.
Ironically, energy use on an individual basis is ANYTHING but constant and uniform, varying commonly over the day by an order of magnitude or more when talking about electric usage. In fact is is correct to say it is never constant or uniform for single user.
It is possible that in the future, our global situation will be such that RE becomes Omaha Beach. In short, it doesn't matter how many lives are lost, how many tons of explosives get used or how many gallons of oil are burned. The beach head simply has to be taken if we are to survive.... cost will no longer be the decisive issue...

Enjoy your time in school, I hope it will be rewarding for you in many ways...

.....Bill
Comment
8 of 22
February 3, 2011
Obama's "Sputnik Moment" failed to set a goal. I'll do it for him: "scalable, clean, affordable electricity." That's the elusive solution. We haven't found it yet and the rest of the world hasn't either.

Solar and wind schemes, or biofuels do not solve the problem.

If this "Sputnik Moment" is so important, Obama should offer a REWARD. I'd suggest $1 billion for a viable solution. In the last 20 years government and private industry have spent $400 billion supporting renewable ideas. Paying just $1 billion for an actual SOLUTION would a great deal.
Comment
9 of 22
February 3, 2011
macegan - What the hell are you babbling about? Are you implying that RE research in the US stopped the Cold War, or are you simply off your meds?
Comment
10 of 22
February 3, 2011
Jennifer, by the way, good article. I always find tackling the cost issue the easiest to clam someone up. Once you start pointing out the long-term ROI on an off-grid or even grid-connected system (always bringing up that fuel prices WILL increase), it's easy to get some tater-nuts to see your side. THEN you hit 'em long-term job creation, getting the US off foreign oil, etc.
Comment
11 of 22
February 4, 2011
Thank you so much for all the good comments and well wishes! To answer some questions:

The focus of our group project for class is utility-scale solar thermal.

Pamela noted some problems solar thermal faces as the second-fiddle to photovoltaics. I'll add two others to the list: Supportive state/federal policies and incentives.

Andrew, you nailed it: When it comes to solar thermal and other renewables, it comes down to "scalable, clean, affordable electricity." I think it's going to take not only financial carrots but environmental regulatory sticks as well that prompt utilities to incorporate more renewables into their generation portfolios.
Comment
12 of 22
February 8, 2011
Done right, small scale solar is inexpensive, highly effective, easily and inexpensively manufactured, installed and maintained. And when used in the right system---can power your car with free solar energy----no batteries required.

flwetdog@hotmail.com
Comment
13 of 22
February 11, 2011
Yea, you know what your problem is? Truth.
This theory that we can power our entire infrastructure as well as transportation is simply wishful thinking in the windmill industry alone. Adding solar panels to the mix hardly causes a blip on the energy cardiological EKG. And in spite of large amounts of cash funneled into nuclear energy, it is not a readily renewable energy. Nope, you are going to have to look much harder in the solar direction if you really want to see a viable energy solution. And not thin film. Rain, evaporation, condensation, rain is the answer. One of Solars great achievements. And with the Middle East figuring out that us dumb Americans are without their Muslim god, oil energy is going to get real expensive. It's time to quit goofing around and look seriously into a science that will replace energy on this planet forever without destroying her ecosystem, and maybe even correcting some of the damage already done. I am a scientist, and I do not have much of a sense of humor regarding stupidity mixed with greed, and this type of post angers some with those limitations, so this will be the only invitation you will get. Go to www.heavyhydraulicoscillation.com to see the solar answer to mans need for energy, and preview what the future holds for us all in regard to truly renewable energy. Enough energy to sustain all wants and needs of the American and Canadian people forever, as well as anyone else on the planet, Christian, Muslim, Judaism, Shinto, Buddhism, Scientology, Satanism, or whatever. Then maybe, just maybe, everyone will become calm in their tiny universal existence, and Peace will reign. Not.
Comment
14 of 22
February 11, 2011
@Tim-Gard: That's an interesting concept, especially the "compressed air farm." how much area do you need to store a reasonable amount of electricity? What if a 200 MW facility wanted to store 24 hours worth of electricity?
Comment
15 of 22
February 11, 2011
We do not store electricity, but I get what you mean. I must correct you, mis-statements can cause confusion. This would be determined by the storage system design, and there are many, depending on the mission. High pressure carbon fiber is one way, allowing quick transportation of energy over long distances, and long term storage. Underground storage such as those now used for natural gas is another possibility. Relativly low pressure vessels for local storage / distribution like large gas holders as the natural gas industry calls them. Couple this with flood stage storage and the generation of energy can offset the costs of such installations reducing flood damage. Insurance companies would help pick up some of the cost to reduce flood damages. For an example of high pressure transportation of a gas, see the Tennessee Gas Pipeline that crosses the US.
Comment
16 of 22
February 12, 2011
Mis-conceptions from both pro-renewables & anti-renewable camps can also be said to be part of the problem.

First it is important to think short term. Short term is transitionary, where large scale adoption of wind & solar electricity generation displaces aging coal power plants. I know, sceptics will point out that coal is baseload & wind/solar are not. NG Cogen peaking + wind & solar together make an effective combo.

Long term is next generation fission & fusion technologies:
Fusion - http://www.generalfusion.com/generator_design.html
General Fusion in Canada is fully funded to deploy their first proof of concept fusion power plant in 2013. Gotta read up on this technology & economics!

Fission - Bill Gate's TerrPower concept. Can run on nuclear waste!

Pro-renewable advocates too often fail to take into account the shear magnitude of the energy consumed world-wide every day just for electricity production, never mind total energy requirements. In this regard, no energy reserve known to man compares to advanced nuclear conversion technologies in terms of getting mankind from here well into the next millenium and beyond.

For once I agree with Andrew W on his continuous point to be made. We do need a long term solution beyond wind and solar that is scalable and rapidly deployable in a distributed manner. In the mean while, GO WIND AND SOLAR.
Comment
17 of 22
March 19, 2011
Hi, Jenifer!
I think it's time that US stop looking for solution within its own borders. Perhaps You know who have brought AC motors and generators that now power allmost all of the World againest DC of Mr. Edison? It was my countryman Engineer Nikola Tesla.
Now I want to carry his torch and bring new kind of molten salt Solars and new kind of Wind Power stations that use new kind of air turbines, joined together into WindSolars that would be not cheap but would produce very cheap electricity 24/365 and make it predictable and available "on demand", too.
It is sometimes enough to find solutions that are better than what exist, and it is called innovation. While innovation can be ordered, sometimes things are nearly optimal and there is nothing left to innovate, therefore something radically new is needed, and this is called Invention. Invention do not try to make existing problems less, it eliminate them in first place. Best inventions turn problems into something usefull. Next, innovations are ordered from scientists, and scientists tend to memorize all Laws that could be applied to domain under study, so they would know what donot work and do not try impossible. That would be fine if all Laws are absolute in all situations and under all circumstances. But, some Laws depend on suppositions of what is going on, and while they are absolutely correct for prescribed set of parameters, if parameters change they may become unapplicable. Case in question is Betz Law or Limit. We learned in school of System Analyse that formulas could be proven or disproven if patrameters are of extreme values. In case of Betz formula, it us assumed that air flow trough turbine is uniform across turbine blades and that direction of flow remains same. If speed of air behind turbine is zero, formula gives speed in turbine as 0.5 of wind entering speed, which is obviously impossible since this 0 speed indicate that air is not passing the turbine. Beside, Tesla's turbine have .95 eficiency
Comment
18 of 22
March 19, 2011
That prove that there could be turbines with eficiency greater than .59 and that betz Law is not absolute. It is also stated that for 0 speed behind turbine, formula is not valid.
My turbines change direction of the air flow so that it exit at 90 degrees to original air flow entering turbine. Centrifugal force also help to speed up air flow trough turbine, just as Coanda Effect, Venturi Effect...
With other turbines, Centrifugal Force just bring problems, and since in my turbine air flow from center radially trough air chambers, it acttually help to sling air out of turbine trough air chambers that act as nozzles. It seem to me that nobody has think WHY there is Betz Limit, perhaps because it is proven to be correct. Reason is, wind is slowed down after impact on turbine blades because that impact transfer kinetic energy to blade and turns it. Blade moves sidewise and is target for other moleculas of Wind which also became slowed down. Therefore behind the each blade there is left air with lesser speed than original Wind speed, and wind colides with this slowed down air, and pushes it forward giving it some of its speed but losing equal amount of its own. Therefore, part of Wind kinetic energy is spent unproductively, and if actual energy transfer on the wing is high then air is slowed down very much, and on this slowed down air wind spend allmost half of its kinetic energy unproductively. My turbine is cylindrical with smooth surface, so onlike blades of other models thare is nothing to produce drag when it rotate in the wind, its surface paralel to wind flow direction. Since nozzles are openings on turbine mantle, they move around so new exhausted air is left on different places all the time, outside of turbine, so Wind that have NOT entered turbine has to spend its kinetic energy to move it down wind. Therefore, kinetic energy of Wind that entered turbine (normally circle of turbine blades) is maximally extracted as it is used as jet force creating reaction.
Comment
19 of 22
March 19, 2011
It seems to me that also nobody has studied why it need to be spent more energy in case of rockets or jet planes, faster is speed they are traveling, or this is also accepted as fact that there is drag caused by airoplane body parting the air in front of it and lessening of reactive force since the air behind rocket or airoplane is receding at relative speed it is traveling. In contrast to this, since my turbine is round and mantle surface is smooth, there is no drag possible, and reactive force do not get less because jets are allways perpendicular to wind flow that provides obstacle to push upon, just like earth for rockets in first moments of flight.
Turbine's air chambers are alike to shortened funnel of Venturi pipe or konfusor, so they compress and speed up air that enters them. But faster turbine turns, it cause faster entrance of air into air chambers and therefore air is speeded up still more. Only drag us from air chamber walls, but this compress the air and slow it down a little. Of course somewhere has to be equilibrium as there cannot be extracted more energy than enters the turbine, but it seems to me that my turbine would work even if there is (unlikely) 100% kinetic energy extraction from Wind that entered turbine. Still, even 3 times better eficiency should enable use of slower Winds that could be found nearly everywhere, or that much more electricity could be produced under same conditions than with standard turbines. That were situation described if my turbine replace standard HAWT turbines, at least those of smaller capacity. There should be some tricks applied to minimize the Sail effect in strong Wind, but I have solution ready. Beside all, such turbines that work on Reactive principle would be self starting, therefore would not spend any electricity in their work, and if made out of recycled transparent plastic would be nearly invisible againest scenery and quiet in work.
Fortunately, list of their advantages is much longer as You would see
Comment
20 of 22
March 19, 2011
My turbines are actually VAWTs and work in the groups where some emergent characteristics is expected. Group of 7 is basic one, where total capacity could be 12 MW instead of just 7, and even this can enable use of scale of wind speeds without need to dump surplus energy to retain same Rpm. Moreover, if new generators invented in my country are used, if rotational speed is multiple of working rpm speed, they would produce that much more MW, so this is another way to produce more electricity for same cost. In case of Laminar air flow, fastest and therefore richest in kinetic energy layer is used automatically and exclusively, where this (usually topmost) layer is creating only damage and problems in standard models.
My WPSs would not need to stop the electricity production regardless of wind strenght, do not have reaction time after Wind change direction, turbulent wind is usable too, annd they can be tailored to location Wind strenght. Therefore they would be able to use locations with weaker as well as stronger Wind then what can be used by standard models. Beside this, there is near "Zero Land Footprint" as the Greenhouses are part of construction, and large groups of 49 or more would enable much better use of available resources at location, specially since such groups could also be close to one another.
My WindTraps are of course scalable, but problem is non linear price which is disproportionally higher for smaller generators, but then big serial production would take care of this. They can be safely used in the populated areas as turbine can be made to be indestructible, and even whole buildings could be turned into WindTraps or even WindSolars.
My molten salt Solars work differently because of new Solar concentrators and thermal storage is under the ground, isolated like thermos bottle therefore there would be minimal, if any heat loss, unlike present models that are automatically cooled by rising of air in contact with hot walls.
Comment
21 of 22
March 19, 2011
Melting salt trough the walls cause also great energy loss, while in my Solars it would be melted from center of storage.
Since underground size is not limited by wall thickness and tower strenght, and Solar concentrators would be relatively cheap, it is easy to install redundant concentrators to colect each day twice or more heat than is required for dayly production, even tayloring system so that shortest periods of insolation can cumulatively store energy to last in longest cloudy periods. If there is ecconomically exploatable Wind at location, WPSs could be added to Solars and surplus or all energy produced from the Wind can be stored as heat in thermal storage of Solars and used as required.
This way intermitency of Wind appearance would become irelevant and level of energy available can be detected as temperature of storage. The rest is problem of sateam turbines efficiency.
Since Solars would be fail safe due to installment of twin pairs of turbine+generator, so if one system fails, other can give full capacity output, and in peak demand time could be produced twice as much electricity. To produce less is no problem at all, specially in big WindSolar Farms where production could be lowered to just one Solar at half or less capacity. Windsolar of 490/980 MW would need 1.5 by 1.5 Km of land or less, all covered by Greenhouses too.

I am certain that production price of 1 MWh would not exceed 10 Euro, but that depend on price of thermal storage mostly, as this is price calculated for 10 years lifetime of Power Stations and in reality because of minimal number of moving parts and little to no maintenance required they can and would last at least 50 if not 100 years.
Furthermore I can make them last indefinitely with still greater profit for electricity producer (about 150% of profit possible according to market prices) and manufacturer, but that I shall not explain now.
There, is that not holy grail of Altenative energy?
I just need my Mr.Westinghouse!
Comment
22 of 22
March 19, 2011
But, that is not all since I have idea for much more efficient Geothermal Power Stations, but before this is introduced, Global Warming process has to be stopped and rewersed.
Beside converting Sun heat on large scale to electricity and thus removing it as addition to overheated athmosphere, and providing lot of new plants that would recycle CO2, using cheap electricity CO2 could be recycled or permanently removed from athmosphee while producing usefull products.
I also invented water condensation devices that would work on agricultural scale using just sunshine in hot climate areas wher water is most needed, or using little electricity (compared to existing models) in other not so sunny areas.
That could raise food, grass or trees production introducing lot of new plants which would also recycle CO2 for shorter or longer periods (i.e. growing the forrests would capture CO2 for decades and even centuries, versus growing crops and vegetables)and help to feed one to three billion people better.

Now, can anybody help me to prove this work by investing into prototypes?
I have several big EU Funds ready to invest, but they have lower limit of investment set to 5, 50 or 500 million Euro, and for investing more i have to have proof.
I contacted many fundations in US, but they seems to be reserved about investment outside of US, or, like Mr. T. Boone Pickens ask for Proof of Concept.
Some treat me like fraudster saying it sound too good to be true, so certainly then it is not :-((
Others say that it is so simple that anybody could have think of it (let's put aside fact that in any case allways someone would be first one) so surely there must be some great fault that is preventing this to be in practical use :-((
Those who understand are in same situation as me since my business Bank collapsed, and I have yet to find someone to invest 100 thousand of Euro, how much would be enough to build the prototypes and make engineering plans for production.

Marijan Pollak
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Jennifer Zajac

View Jennifer Zajac's Profile
About: Jennifer Zajac has covered the U.S. electric power sector for more than eight years and was founder/editor of SNL Energy's Renewable Energy Week, a newsletter d... more »

Recent Blog Posts

Push the Carrots, Hold the Sticks?
Who Are the Rock Stars of Renewables?
Southern Warming up to Solar
More »

Advertise With Us

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access Featured Total Access Partners
 
Valentin Software, Inc - providing Solar Design Software DNV KEMA Energy & Sustainability Zep Solar Leybold Optics SCHOTT Solar PV, Inc. Green Power Conferences Rotork plc
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters